Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2016

Kernan v. Commissioner

Kernan v. Commissioner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 21, 2016 · Leavy, Berzon, Murguia
670 F. App'x 944

Counsel

Eugene J. Kernan, Pro Se, Robert Joel Branman, Esquire, Richard Farber, Esquire, Supervisory Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Kernan v. Commissioner

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eugene J. Kernan appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, confirming the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and additions for tax years 2001 through 2006. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo the Tax Court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Johanson v. Comm’r, 541 F.3d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the Commissioner’s determination of deficiencies and additions to Kernan’s taxes for tax years 2001 through 2006. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 1, 6012, 6651(a), 6654.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by striking Kernan’s briefs because they exceeded the length limitations imposed by the court. See Alexander Shokai, Inc. v. Comm’r, 34 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.